Are Marketers Responsible for the Use of Harmful Products in Society - Essay Example

Are marketers responsible for the use of harmful products in society? Introduction Markets today are flooded with products which are harmful for consumers yet they thrive as their demand increases. Who is responsible for such product existence-is it the marketer who uses deceptive promotion luring consumers to use such products or is it the naïve consumer who falls prey to such marketing gimmicks, in most cases, knowingly? The essay focuses on the products of tobacco cigarettes and fast-food, showing how these products have become a social need and almost addictive despite the fact that they are harmful for our health. This essay argues that marketers are responsible for the consumption of harmful products by consumers. Society suffers tremendously when such harmful products are easily available. These products become so integrated in the lifestyles of people that consumers almost get addicted to them oblivious to the fact that these products are harming them. Why are these products marketed? Do marketers make such products so attractive that consumers over look the repercussions of their use or is it that the consumers have an existing demand for them that is why they are being manufactured and marketed. Such products have to be marketed within ethical boundaries or else the society will suffer immeasurable harm (Gandolf). Body Organizations today are encouraged to focus on being socially responsible. This means that they have to consider the interests of the society by taking the responsibility for the effects the firm’s activities has on its customers, stakeholders, employees, the community, the environment and all things involved in every step of its operations. This extends beyond the legal framework within which the company is required to work and is basically going a step further not to harm the society and helping make the society a better place. They should have business ethics and ideally produce products that are beneficial for the society. Today firms have incorporated CSR as an integral part of their long term strategic goals. This extends into different steps the product goes through-from the manufacturing stage till it reaches the consumer (Vass 2007). This also means that all the products should be marketed within ethical bounds keeping the interest of the society first in mind. With firms being socially more responsible, they are contributing tremendously towards improving the society. (Vass 2007). Making consumers more aware of the products and giving them a clearer picture through marketing enables the consumer to make a better choice for himself and thus a better relationship dwells between the consumer and the marketer. However, not all firms are ethical and seek self interest at the expense of society. They firstly produce products that are harmful for society, and then encase these products with tactical marketing which makes these products so attractive for consumers that they overlook the disadvantages of these products (Vass 2007). However, these marketing gurus manipulate the consumer mind staying within legal bounds. Marketers argue that they are not creating a need for harmful products but simply catering to this need which already exists. They also argue that if they stay within legal parameters, then they should not be blamed. Besides consumers always have the choice not to use these products (Gandolf). However, others hold marketers responsible for harmful products being part of the society. They tactfully highlight the more attractive things that are associated with the product and do not emphasize enough on the pitfalls of using such products. Take for example cigarettes. They have no health benefit whatsoever for the smoker. Instead, cigarettes even harm those that are sitting close to the smoker through passive smoking. The cigarette industry is huge globally and is playing a major role in sustaining the economy of many countries; however, what is the cost that the society has to pay? (Hoek 1999). It has been proven that cigarette smoking is injurious to health and causes lung diseases and even cancer. Is this advertised by the marketers? Of course not. What we do see in advertisements is attractive models that are smoking in TV and print commercials (Slater et al 2007). Also, high class executives are seen smoking in the advertisements which gives the message to young people that smoking is classy and makes you look stylish and like an adult. This is particularly luring for the youngsters who take up smoking in an attempt to look older and stylish and then later get addicted to it harming not only themselves but those around them too. The money that they spend could have been used for something healthier and constructive which only means that the marketers have been successful in promoting harmful products. (Hoek 1999). To build a socially responsible image, some cigarette companies sponsor youth smoking prevention programs, education sponsorship where they give scholarships, community level projects etc (Vass 2007). This is however quite contrary because at one end they encourage smoking and make it a benchmark for being socially acceptable and at the other end they contribute to health organizations like donating to hospitals. In some countries advertisements of cigarette are banned but it doesn’t stop the marketers to market their products. Also, smoking is highly addictive which means that a weak reinforcer like advertising would cause a decrease in smoking habits and even if it does, it would do so only in the short run (Hoek 1999). The marketers employ different ways to market them by sponsoring shows etc and indulging in BTL (below the line) activities interacting with the consumers and indirectly marketing their products. Do we ever see these same companies conducting seminars that educate consumers about how bad smoking is for their health? They should conduct such awareness programs if they truly want to be socially responsible. But they are never going to do this as they seek their own benefits above that of society. It is argued that the consumers are aware of the fact that cigarettes are bad for their health yet they want to buy it and these firms just cater to this already existing need. But why has it become so important for consumers to buy cigarettes at the expense of their health? It is simply because of the image the media has associated with cigarette and tactful marketing forces the consumer to buy cigarettes and be addicted to them (Slater et al 2007). Another growing concern of a harmful product, fast food, is that it is so readily available in every part of the world. Fast food has dramatically altered the eating habits of the society. Easy and fast availability of good tasting food has caused lots of consumers to switch towards this sort of eating. (Dickenson 2000).However, studies have shown that over the years, fast food causes obesity especially in children. Obese children will most likely grow to be obese adults with greater chances of developing serious diseases like diabetes, heart disease and in the end, a shorter life span (Flegal et al 2005).Today this has become the number one concern for the US. Tomorrow it will be the concern for the whole world. According to Lvovich (2003), children today have altered lifestyles as they exercise less and have rather easier lifestyles of convenience. Marketing of fast food has caused an increase in its consumption which causes obesity. Fast food industries have been focusing their marketing campaigns on children. For example “Happy Meal” of McDonalds which is often accompanied with a toy to attract kids to eat more. Did the fast food industry not assess the nutritional values of their meals?( Baker2005).Why didn’t they make the consumers aware that the ingredients could make them obese and why did they not conduct proper research before marketing their products to children without realizing the drastic effects it would have on the society ?( Baker2005). Firstly is it ethical to even treat children as consumers and direct marketing campaigns towards them playing with their psyche and creating nostalgia? To prove commercials have an effect on children, according to the research of Taras et al, (2000) children have a direct impact of seeing fast food advertisements and thus demand fast food after watching their commercials. Secondly, they should be marketing completely healthy products to them. It is not in the control of parents whether they should buy them such food or not as children have become very demanding and since everyone is having such food they don’t want to be left out and be an outcast (Spungin 2004). Besides, such attractive marketing campaigns like free toys, summer camps and outdoor activities etc are tied to the products offered that children are just too inquisitive and force their parents to buy them such meals. Today these fast food chains are introducing healthier options but their main business thrives on unhealthy fat laden food (Baker 2005).Introducing a healthy range is just a marketing gimmick that they use as a façade to attract customers who end up buying not just the healthy range of products but also the non healthy ones. Marketers argue that the major cause of obesity is that children exercise less. However, the high fat content in the food products only adds to the problem (Schlosser 2004). Besides, products should be altered in accordance with the changing lifestyles of consumers. It is not being truly socially responsible if they contribute towards giving scholarships and making schools for children and at the same time market them food using attractive marketing gimmicks that threatens their life and exposes them to chronic diseases (Taras 2000). Conclusion Marketers are responsible for making harmful products attractive to the consumers via tactful and deceptive marketing and advertising. They create the need for such harmful products and use their marketing tact to grow this market making these products attractive for the consumers. The consumers are tempted to use these products who slowly become addicted to these harmful products. Even decreasing the advertisements of such products have little difference on the demand as the consumers are addicted. The marketing of these harmful products over powers the health programs the government and concerned bodies hold thus even such programs have little influence on the consumption level (Hoek 1999) Marketers have been successful in influencing the minds of the consumers whereby they cannot see the disadvantages of using harmful products and continue to demand them harming themselves in the process. This is evident in products like cigarettes and fast food where they are consumed globally even though their repercussions are known to the consumers. The fast food industry for instance should warn their consumers that too much consumption is not good and will cause obesity instead of just focusing on mouth watering marketing tactics that would definitely attract consumers (Schlosser 2004). There aren’t sufficient laws to protect consumers which give these marketers an edge to play with the consumer’s mind. The consumers should be made aware of both the negative and the positive and then the decision making should be left in the hands of the consumers. It is because of aggressive marketing that the consumers are compelled lured to use harmful products. References Baker, G. (2005). From a Pioneer to a pariah as Golden Arches celebrates 50 years’, Times. Retrieved September 7 2007. Available: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1571623,00.html Dickenson, R (2000) Food and Eating on Television: Impacts and Influences. Nutrition and Food Science 30 (1): 24-27 Flegal KM, Graubard BI, Williamson, DF, Gail MH (2005). Excess deaths associated with underweight, overweight, and obesity. Journal of the American Medical Association, 293(15):1861–7. Gandolf S, Hirsch L. Ethical Marketing. Retrieved September 9 2007. Available: http://www.healthcaresuccess.com/articles/ethical-marketing.html Hoek, J. (1999). Effects of Tobacco Advertising Restrictions: Weak responses to strong measures? International Journal of Advertising, 18(1), 23–40. Lvovich, S. (2003). Advertising and obesity: The research evidence. International Journal of Advertising and Marketing to Children, 4(3), 35–40. Schlosser, Eric. (2004). Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal. News Service 2think. Retrieved September 8 2007. Available: http://www.2think.org/fastfood.shtml. Slater S, Chaloupka F, Wakefield M, Johnston L, OMalley P (May 2007).The Impact of Retail Cigarette Marketing Practices on Youth Smoking Uptake. Retrieved September 8 2007. Available: http://www.rwjf.org/pr/topic.jsp?journal=Archives%20of%20Pediatrics%20&%20Adolescent%20Medicine Spungin, P. (2004). Parent power, not pester power. International Journal of Advertising and Marketing to Children, 5(3), 37–40. Taras H, Boyd C, Zive M, Nader P, Berry CC, Hoy T (2000). Television Advertising and classes of food products consumed in a pediatric population. International Journal of Advertising, 19(4): 487-494 Vass, S. (May 2007) A question of ethics for marketing agencies Advertising Consumerism. Retrieved: September 7 2007. Available: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20070520/ai_n19166611/pg_3 Read More